ArticleJDS communications2026
The behavioral response of dairy cows to different shock energies delivered during virtual fencing training.
Article in JDS communications, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Animal Individual Factors Dictate Learning Strategy: An Integrated Analysis of Cattle Adaptation to a Virtual Fencing System.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The uptake of virtual fencing (VF) technologies to manage grazing dairy cattle is increasing, but little empirical evidence exists to support acceptable thresholds for the electric shock delivered by these systems. This study quantified the behavioral responses of dairy cows to 4 shock energy levels delivered by the Halter VF system. Forty early-lactation multiparous dairy cows, naïve to VF, were studied in 5 groups of 8 animals. Within each group, cows were randomly allocated to receive one of 4 shock energies (0.1, 0.2, 0.3, or 0.45 J) via a collar-mounted VF unit. Behavioral responses to shock were recorded and classified using a 6-point reaction score: (1) stop, pause, or no response with no steps taken; (2) fewer than 3 steps taken away from the VF; (3) more than 3 steps taken at a normal walking pace; (4) more than 3 steps taken at a fast walking pace and or head shake; (5) move away at a trotting pace; and (6) jump, vocalization, or 360-degree turn. Linear mixed models were used to assess the effects of shock energy, group, and individual cow on behavioral responses. Most reactions (84%) were classified as scores 1 to 3. Shock energy was not associated with reaction score, the number of shocks received, or the time taken to resume grazing within the 0.1 to 0.45 J range studied. Individual cow accounted for 46% of the variation in behavioral response and 34% of the variation in latency to resume grazing. Individual cow characteristics were more influential than shock energy in determining behavioral responses to shock, reinforcing the importance of delivering the lowest effective stimulus for an individual cow in VF systems, without exceeding tested energy thresholds.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.